Settled: Anthony Watts Is A Fraud

Anthony Watts' fifteen minutes are up.  His publicity stunt worked so well that after wasting thousands of hours of climate scientists' and U.S. Congress members' time, and sowing false doubt among millions of voters, he finally had to submit his false claims to scrutiny by a real scientist -- albeit not much of one -- lukewarmer/delayer/deniar Roger Pielke, Sr.  Like Professor Muller of Berkeley, Pielke had to admit that the data show no evidence whatsoever of the bias they were seeking in the mean temperature trend, as detailed in the attachment below.  Finding such bias was the entire purpose of the Surface Stations project.  

Pielke does note the one anomaly he was able to find, that daily temperature extremes are not as great at "poor" sites.  What this means is that temperature extremes have thus far been underestimated, and one of the side effects of global warming predicted by climate scientists is in fact worse than we had supposed.  But that's nothing to do with Anthony Watts.  His claim was that siting was causing a false warming trend to appear due to "urban heat island effects" and that is disproved, absolutely.

Temperature trend estimates vary according to site classification, with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum temperature trends, resulting in particular in a substantial difference in estimates of the diurnal temperature range trends.  The opposite-signed differences of maximum and minimum temperature trends are similar in magnitude, so that the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications.

End of story.
Ċ
r-3671.pdf
(5895k)
Settled Science,
Jul 6, 2011, 9:25 PM
Comments